If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
aerobatic C172?
On May 2, 7:18 am, C J Campbell
wrote: The 172 may be able to stand the G forces, but that is not the only limitation. The carburetor only works when right side up, for example. Is that true? I can understand that the float would run out of gas after a bit but I don't see how the carb itself would care about the G's. In the Aeronca we were able to maintain inverted flight for more than a couple of seconds before the engine would stop. The carb is already on the bottom of the engine and the fuel/air mixture travels up the intake via the massive suction of the intake stroke. -Robert |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
aerobatic C172?
Rolling Airplanes You too could make the hit parade. http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20070221X00205&key=1'' Probably had enough energy. No Tex Johnson. Bill Hale On May 2, 8:58 am, john smith wrote: In article .com, gt wrote: I own a 1960 Cessna 172 with 2500 hours on the airframe. It is not rated for aerobatic flight, but the positive and negative G loads that it is approved for far exceed the normal G forces associated with a well-executed barrel roll. Has anyone heard of this maneuver being performed in a 1960 172? Not enough "energy" to be performed in level flight. It can be done in a dive by a competent aerobatic pilot, maintaining airspeed and 1-G loading throughout the maneuver. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
aerobatic C172?
On 1-May-2007, gt wrote: I own a 1960 Cessna 172 with 2500 hours on the airframe. It is not rated for aerobatic flight, but the positive and negative G loads that it is approved for far exceed the normal G forces associated with a well-executed barrel roll. Has anyone heard of this maneuver being performed in a 1960 172? This one might illustrate what could happen to someone (like yourself maybe) trying aerobatics in a Cessna 172. The pilot was a US Air Force instructor pilot at Laughlin AFB, Del Rio, Texas. I guess he thought he was a good enough stick to get away with it, but... NTSB Identification: FTW86FA051 . The docket is stored on NTSB microfiche number 31025. 14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation Accident occurred Sunday, March 30, 1986 in DEL RIO, TX Aircraft: CESSNA 172N, registration: N8423E Injuries: 4 Fatal. THE PILOT WAS DOING AEROBATIC MANEUVERS IN THE CESSNA 172 AIRPLANE WITH THREE PASSENGERS AND A HEAVY LOAD OF FUEL ABOARD. THE MANEUVERS CONSISTED OF BUZZING BOATS ON THE LAKE AT VERY LOW ALTITUDE, AT LEAST ONE COMPLETE AILERON ROLL, SEVERAL VERY ABRUPT PULL-UPS, SEVERAL VERY ABRUPT LEVEL-OFFS AT VERY LOW ALTITUDE, AND SEVERAL HAMMERHEAD TYPE TURNS. THE LAST MANEUVER, WHICH TERMINATED WITH THE ACCIDENT, WAS A STEEP PULLUP AND CLIMB FOLLOWED BY A HAMMERHEAD TURN AND A DELAYED PULLOUT AT THE BOTTOM WHICH RESULTED IN IMPACT WITH THE TERRAIN. THE AIRCRAFT WAS OPERATING IN THE UTILITY CATAGORY OF AIRWORTHINESS ON THE ACCIDENT FLIGHT. FOR THIS CATAGORY, AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT THE AIRCRAFT WAS 323 POUNDS OVER IT'S MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE GROSS WEIGHT AND 3.1 INCHES BEYOND IT'S ALLOWABLE AFT C.G. LIMIT. The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows: ALTITUDE..MISJUDGED..PILOT IN COMMAND LEVEL OFF..DELAYED..PILOT IN COMMAND Contributing Factors: AEROBATICS..PERFORMED..PILOT IN COMMAND |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
aerobatic C172?
C J Campbell wrote:
The 172 may be able to stand the G forces, but that is not the only limitation. The carburetor only works when right side up, for example. If you maintain around one G throughout the manuever, the carb will continue to work just fine. As others have posted, it's not whether or not the plane can take the forces generated in a properly executed manuever (which it can). It's more whether the airplane can take the stresses of a botched manuever. I've botched some manuevers in a fully aerobatic aircraft that would have been pretty ugly in a non-aerobatic plane. John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180) -- Message posted via AviationKB.com http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums...ation/200705/1 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
aerobatic C172?
Have you ever spin the Cherokee 180?
flynrider via AviationKB.com wrote: C J Campbell wrote: The 172 may be able to stand the G forces, but that is not the only limitation. The carburetor only works when right side up, for example. If you maintain around one G throughout the manuever, the carb will continue to work just fine. As others have posted, it's not whether or not the plane can take the forces generated in a properly executed manuever (which it can). It's more whether the airplane can take the stresses of a botched manuever. I've botched some manuevers in a fully aerobatic aircraft that would have been pretty ugly in a non-aerobatic plane. John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180) |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
aerobatic C172?
On 2007-05-02 14:47:53 -0700, "flynrider via AviationKB.com" u32749@uwe said:
C J Campbell wrote: The 172 may be able to stand the G forces, but that is not the only limitation. The carburetor only works when right side up, for example. If you maintain around one G throughout the manuever, the carb will continue to work just fine. Yeah. I assumed that others had read the rest of the thread. -- Waddling Eagle World Famous Flight Instructor |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
aerobatic C172?
nobody wrote:
Have you ever spin the Cherokee 180? Yes. I spin my Cherokee on a fairly regular basis. It takes a bit of planning ahead to make sure it's in the Utility Category envelope, but it's worth it. John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180) -- Message posted via AviationKB.com http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums...ation/200705/1 |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
aerobatic C172?
The NTSB said :
THE AIRCRAFT WAS OPERATING IN THE UTILITY CATAGORY OF AIRWORTHINESS ON THE ACCIDENT FLIGHT. FOR THIS CATAGORY, AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT THE AIRCRAFT WAS 323 POUNDS OVER IT'S MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE GROSS WEIGHT AND 3.1 INCHES BEYOND IT'S ALLOWABLE AFT C.G. LIMIT. I think it could more accurately be said that the aircraft was NOT operating in the Utility Category on the accident flight. John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180) -- Message posted via AviationKB.com http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums...ation/200705/1 |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
aerobatic C172?
On May 2, 7:18 am, C J Campbell
wrote: On 2007-05-01 21:52:46 -0700, gt said: I own a 1960 Cessna 172 with 2500 hours on the airframe. It is not rated for aerobatic flight, but the positive and negative G loads that it is approved for far exceed the normal G forces associated with a well-executed barrel roll. Has anyone heard of this maneuver being performed in a 1960 172? Of course. However, that does not mean it is legal or smart. The 172 may be able to stand the G forces, but that is not the only limitation. The carburetor only works when right side up, for example. A barrel roll should not be a problem, executed properly, but if you screw it up then you might have some trouble. The 172 is allowed to do spins, but it can be hard on the instruments, knocking them back and forth from stop to stop. For that reason some FBOs insist that spin training be done in other airplanes. I suspect, however, that the real reasons the 172 is not certified for aerobatics is Cessna didn't want the liability, the 172 has a not-very-much-fun roll rate, and sooner or later some pilot would be bound to do them with passengers and no parachutes. Finally, if you are the sort of person who goes out and abuses other people's property and tries to conceal it, I suspect that most of us would not want you renting our planes. -- Waddling Eagle World Famous Flight Instructor As I wrote, I own the plane. I do not and have not gone out and abused other people's property. If I did, I wouldn't try to conceal it, but thanks for the response. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
aerobatic C172?
On 2007-05-02 19:49:12 -0700, gt said:
On May 2, 7:18 am, C J Campbell wrote: On 2007-05-01 21:52:46 -0700, gt said: I own a 1960 Cessna 172 with 2500 hours on the airframe. It is not rated for aerobatic flight, but the positive and negative G loads that it is approved for far exceed the normal G forces associated with a well-executed barrel roll. Has anyone heard of this maneuver being performed in a 1960 172? Of course. However, that does not mean it is legal or smart. The 172 may be able to stand the G forces, but that is not the only limitation. The carburetor only works when right side up, for example. A barrel roll should not be a problem, executed properly, but if you screw it up then you might have some trouble. The 172 is allowed to do spins, but it can be hard on the instruments, knocking them back and forth from stop to stop. For that reason some FBOs insist that spin training be done in other airplanes. I suspect, however, that the real reasons the 172 is not certified for aerobatics is Cessna didn't want the liability, the 172 has a not-very-much-fun roll rate, and sooner or later some pilot would be bound to do them with passengers and no parachutes. Finally, if you are the sort of person who goes out and abuses other people's property and tries to conceal it, I suspect that most of us would not want you renting our planes. -- Waddling Eagle World Famous Flight Instructor As I wrote, I own the plane. I do not and have not gone out and abused other people's property. If I did, I wouldn't try to conceal it, but thanks for the response. I am very sorry. I did not mean to imply that you would do this. I was speaking generally, not about you personally. I am embarrassed that I said that. -- Waddling Eagle World Famous Flight Instructor |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
C172 charter in LA | Timo | Piloting | 15 | January 30th 06 07:20 PM |
Looking for a nice C172 | Richardt Human | Piloting | 1 | February 12th 05 08:06 PM |
C172/175/177 diff? | John T | Piloting | 19 | January 24th 05 08:07 PM |
C172 fuel cap | [email protected] | Owning | 13 | September 25th 04 05:25 AM |
C172 Air vents | Matt Young | Owning | 8 | July 2nd 04 12:53 PM |